I would say yeah. Only because if person got caught they wouldn't see it like well user A deserved it because they were cracking peoples account. The argument could always be made that a report should have been filed.

This is the raw form submission for a youtube login. You can strip this down quite a bit and it will still work. Execute this from a script or a program on a username/dictionary and log the results.. After like 5 concurrent and quick failed attempts the login adds a captcha.. that captcha is a pretty simple one actually and it times out pretty quick..

I cant recall, its been awhile since I signed up, if youtube has a mandatory password security level or not.

The other problem is the API and the number of phone, facebook, wordpress, etc apps that link to your youtube account.. so many of these may connect you insecurely, and even that many more may be rogue and processing your account details.

Then finally on top of that.. people continue to fall for the fake youtube login page which simply phishes account info.

Chillidx wrote:If some ones on youtube cracking peoples accounts for fun would it be immoral to hack that persons youtube?

The Internet is not like real life. In real life, if someone breaks into your property, and you shoot them, then that's self defense and perfectly moral. However, on the Internet, you have no property, and no defense; you have to rely on the ability of others (programmers, sysadmin's, etc.) to provide that defense for you. While you may be angry if someone stole your personal information by breaking into your account, that's still not the same as someone breaking into your house, because you don't own your account. Instead, you're paying someone a fee (with either real money, or the advertisement revenue you generate) to kindly keep all of your information on one place for you. That company that is keeping all of this, owns your account, which is why they get to sue the hackers and not you.

Now, if you apply the above information to an argument of morality, it doesn't change anything because the fact that we already established that nothing of yours was stolen (you have no property on the Internet, remember?). So it's essentially the equivalent of beating up a professional lock picker, even if he stole nothing from you. That wouldn't be exactly moral, would it? If you answered yes to that question, let's break it down even further; if person x committed no crime against you, and yet you attack them, because they have committed a crime before to someone else, what's the difference between that and beating someone up because you don't like something they did? Essentially, you're attacking someone because of something they did, to someone else, which you didn't like.

You have to remember that when you're on the Internet, you own nothing.

Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning. -Rick Cook

Chillidx wrote:If some ones on youtube cracking peoples accounts for fun would it be immoral to hack that persons youtube?

The Internet is not like real life. In real life, if someone breaks into your property, and you shoot them, then that's self defense and perfectly moral. However, on the Internet, you have no property, and no defense; you have to rely on the ability of others (programmers, sysadmin's, etc.) to provide that defense for you. While you may be angry if someone stole your personal information by breaking into your account, that's still not the same as someone breaking into your house, because you don't own your account. Instead, you're paying someone a fee (with either real money, or the advertisement revenue you generate) to kindly keep all of your information on one place for you. That company that is keeping all of this, owns your account, which is why they get to sue the hackers and not you.

Now, if you apply the above information to an argument of morality, it doesn't change anything because the fact that we already established that nothing of yours was stolen (you have no property on the Internet, remember?). So it's essentially the equivalent of beating up a professional lock picker, even if he stole nothing from you. That wouldn't be exactly moral, would it? If you answered yes to that question, let's break it down even further; if person x committed no crime against you, and yet you attack them, because they have committed a crime before to someone else, what's the difference between that and beating someone up because you don't like something they did? Essentially, you're attacking someone because of something they did, to someone else, which you didn't like.

You have to remember that when you're on the Internet, you own nothing.

Eh, I disagree. You can earn revenue on Youtube, so if someone is hacking your account, wouldn't that be stealing money-- AKA, property? Same thing goes for websites. If you are earning money by selling merchandise or by letting them use your services, wouldn't that be stealing as well? It's kinda like if a company gave you a car. You don't exactly have ownership to it, but if someone stole it and you had the chance to get it back it wouldn't be immoral.

"If you cannot win the game, if you cannot solve the puzzle, then you are just another loser." (Near from Death Note)Michael:What are you doing?Salander:I'm reading your notes.Michael:They're encrypted.Salander:Please. Have some coffee.

Szayel wrote:Eh, I disagree. You can earn revenue on Youtube, so if someone is hacking your account, wouldn't that be stealing money-- AKA, property? Same thing goes for websites. If you are earning money by selling merchandise or by letting them use your services, wouldn't that be stealing as well? It's kinda like if a company gave you a car. You don't exactly have ownership to it, but if someone stole it and you had the chance to get it back it wouldn't be immoral.

Right, but YouTube is giving you the money for being a good kid and making them money. It's like if you work in a retail job that gives you bonuses for every sale you get. The job is not your property, nor is the place you are selling it. Also, merchandise and services are not Internet based things, they also exist in the real world, whereas websites do not.

Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning. -Rick Cook

Szayel wrote:Eh, I disagree. You can earn revenue on Youtube, so if someone is hacking your account, wouldn't that be stealing money-- AKA, property? Same thing goes for websites. If you are earning money by selling merchandise or by letting them use your services, wouldn't that be stealing as well? It's kinda like if a company gave you a car. You don't exactly have ownership to it, but if someone stole it and you had the chance to get it back it wouldn't be immoral.

Right, but YouTube is giving you the money for being a good kid and making them money. It's like if you work in a retail job that gives you bonuses for every sale you get. The job is not your property, nor is the place you are selling it. Also, merchandise and services are not Internet based things, they also exist in the real world, whereas websites do not.

I can agree with you about the Youtube thing, but not necessarily the merchandise and property thing. Let's take paypal for an example. If someone hacked into your paypal account and took your money, would that not be stealing property?

"If you cannot win the game, if you cannot solve the puzzle, then you are just another loser." (Near from Death Note)Michael:What are you doing?Salander:I'm reading your notes.Michael:They're encrypted.Salander:Please. Have some coffee.

Szayel wrote:If someone hacked into your paypal account and took your money, would that not be stealing property?

No, because your money would have never been stolen. Paypal is just representing an arbitrary number (the amount of money you decided to allow Paypal to access), which it made sure you had enough of said number from your bank account, but his is all just a representation of your actual money. No physical property has been taken, or changed, all of the money in your name is still there, thus, the bank can reimburse you by just changing the number.

Besides, when you give your money to the bank, you're giving it to them to keep on. You're giving them your property. They're in charge of it, not you. So, once again, you don't own that property any more.

Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning. -Rick Cook

Szayel wrote:If someone hacked into your paypal account and took your money, would that not be stealing property?

No, because your money would have never been stolen. Paypal is just representing an arbitrary number (the amount of money you decided to allow Paypal to access), which it made sure you had enough of said number from your bank account, but his is all just a representation of your actual money. No physical property has been taken, or changed, all of the money in your name is still there, thus, the bank can reimburse you by just changing the number.

Besides, when you give your money to the bank, you're giving it to them to keep on. You're giving them your property. They're in charge of it, not you. So, once again, you don't own that property any more.

That logic makes no sense. If someone is in charge of your property, it doesn't mean it isn't yours. There was actually a case, where someone was in jail, and she had a friend in charge of the property. After she got out of jail, her friend sold the property, causing them to go to court. You're making it seem like property is belongs to only the person who is currently in charge of it. If that were true, we wouldn't have so much concern over "Identity theft."

"If you cannot win the game, if you cannot solve the puzzle, then you are just another loser." (Near from Death Note)Michael:What are you doing?Salander:I'm reading your notes.Michael:They're encrypted.Salander:Please. Have some coffee.

LoGiCaL__ wrote:I would say yeah. Only because if person got caught they wouldn't see it like well user A deserved it because they were cracking peoples account. The argument could always be made that a report should have been filed.

I would agree that one could bet on that stance being taken. But I would make the point that most accounts have a governing email address that can be used to reset the password. Then you could just take your account back.

And if they've gotten into your account BY hacking your email, you could always try the reset on that account (alt address, security question, etc.). If they were smart and changed all of that, as well as the associated email for YouTube (if they allow for that), I would say your only option would be to break into your old YouTube account the same way they got into yours.

Which yes, they deserve, but I would also have to say it is unethical. After all, what are you after? The content? The followers? You could just download your old vids. If you're worried about the followers etc, you can always rebuild a fan base. People might argue about who's the genuine article at first, but if you're in connection with many people he can't impersonate you for long. And if you have anything of uncommon value to contribute, it will show in future uploads, something that also cannot be emulated.

However I'm not a fan of having more laws than one man could ever learn. I think if you CAN do it, it should be legal. And if you don't know how a machine works, you really shouldn't even be using it; you would only endanger yourself and others.

It's sort of like my idea about how most people shouldn't be driving ;p